Eshu Marneedi

Marcus Mendes, reporting for 9to5Mac:

Which brings us to The Information’s report, and its account of several cases where “Apple employees who left for other companies over the past decade told The Information they, too, continued to have access to confidential documents after leaving the company, even though they made no effort to do so.”

From the report:

Former Apple employees say an unusual company policy that encourages them to blend professional and workplace technologies is why they unexpectedly ended up with access to confidential files after their departures.

When new employees join Apple, the company often issues them an iPhone and Mac and pays for an iCloud account with a large amount of online storage capacity. Crucially, during the onboarding process, Apple encourages new hires to use their preexisting personal Apple IDs with this iCloud account, through which their co-workers can share internal Apple documents and other files with them.

The reason behind this, The Information notes, is the fact that iPhone users “can only log into a single primary Apple ID that unlocks all iCloud capabilities at a time.” So to avoid carrying two different sets of devices, one for personal and another for work (which is not uncommon by any means), “most Apple employees opt to use their personal Apple IDs to access their iCloud accounts.”

The report explains that, since the late 2010s, Apple employees have had access to a company-managed folder within iCloud that is automatically removed when they leave.

However, many internal documents are reportedly not automatically saved there, allowing files shared outside the folder to remain mixed with employees’ personal data and accessible after their departure.

This iCloud news definitely makes the case look less like a slam dunk at first glance, but it’s still obviously winnable¹. Cases like these hinge on the idea that the plaintiff must take reasonable action to ensure its intellectual property stays confidential. This combined work and personal iCloud account structure will clearly be at the center of OpenAI’s argument, along with supposed evidence that it was actually Apple employees who messaged Chang Liu, the employee sued alongside OpenAI, for help with Apple internal projects after his departure. (OpenAI also claims, with seemingly no attached receipts, that Liu was trying to “do the right thing,” with no further elaboration.) The idea that Apple doesn’t care about guarding its intellectual property is laughable — I don’t think it’ll work in court.

The messages between Liu and an Apple employee don’t refute Apple’s argument that OpenAI instructed and encouraged its Apple hires to bring prototypes and other confidential information into interviews. OpenAI’s Monday-evening response to the lawsuit only says, “Tang has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information… Tang served Apple for more than 24 years and was widely known as one of the most innovative leaders at the company,” referring to Tang Tan, now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. OpenAI also doesn’t address the assertion that it asked an overseas supplier for information about Apple’s confidential manufacturing processes. The blog post only truly refutes — with evidence — one claim relevant to the lawsuit: that Apple’s lawyers tried but failed to contact OpenAI’s. I’m not sure whether that will even matter in court.

I still think the case is winnable for Apple because even if the documents weren’t secured — either in iCloud or, as Apple says, third-party cloud storage — Apple could (correctly) assert that it wasn’t suing because the employees simply had access to documents post-employment, but that they actively used these documents to get a job at OpenAI. And, to involve the company itself, that using those accidentally obtained documents was encouraged by OpenAI’s chief recruiters and officers. It will argue that Apple employees knew they should report such incidents rather than take advantage of them for future employment. The motives of OpenAI’s executives and employees are central to the lawsuit and, if it goes to court, will have to be investigated during discovery. (It’s very much possible this settles out of court.)

An update was made on August 5, 2026, at 5:19 a.m.: I’ve added further clarification on the iCloud storage claim.